Robert L. Millet and Joseph Fielding McConkie on New Birth and Covenant Adoption

The New Birth and Covenant Adoption

Deliverance from this state-redemption from spiritual death--is made available only through the labors of a God, through the magisterial ministry of one mightier than death, one upon whom justice had no claims and death had no hold. But deliverance is not a given, not something that may be had without effort and without price. In order to be released from carnality and restored to righteousness, men and women must exercise saving faith in Jesus Christ and thus receive the blessings of the Atonement: they must "put off the natural man" through Christ, must "crucify the old man of sin" and rise through their Redeemer unto a "newness of life" (see Mosiah 3:19; Romans 6:6).

Because people are not born in mortality into the family of God, because on earth man is estranged by the fall from holiness, he must be adopted into that family--must comply with the laws of adoption, must meet the lawful requirements. This is accomplished through subscribing to and receiving what Joseph Smith called the "articles of adoption," the first principles and ordinances of the gospel (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 328).

"Faith, repentance, baptism and the laying on of hands," wrote Elder Orson Pratt, "are the four rules of adoption. Remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, are the two blessings of adoption which are inseparably connected with obedience to the rules. Both the rules and the blessings of adoption are the same in all ages and dispensations of the gospel. No man or woman ever entered into the Church or kingdom of God on this earth, and became a legal citizen thereof, without complying strictly with these rules. Indeed, it is the only door or entrance into the kingdom." ("The Kingdom of God," in Orson Pratt's Works, p. 48.) Further, as a person receives the ordinances of salvation and thereafter enjoys the gift and influence of the Holy Ghost, he is said to have been "born again," to have risen above spiritual death unto spiritual life, to have come alive to the things of the Spirit.

As the Savior and foreordained Messiah, Jesus our Lord became the "author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Hebrews 5:9), and the Father's gospel--the gospel of God (see Romans 1:1-3)--because his, the gospel of Jesus Christ. Christ is the father of salvation, the father of resurrection, and the father of redemption. He is also the King of kings, and spiritual adoption represents acceptance into his family kingdom. Those who have been born again become members of the family of Christ and thus take upon them the family name--they become Christians in the true senses of that word and are obliged by covenant to live by the rules and regulations of the royal family, to live a life befitting the new and sacred name they have taken. (Robert L. Millet and Joseph Fielding McConkie, In His Holy Name [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988], 17-19)

Best Works Introducing "Mormonism" to Readers by non-LDS Authors

It is rare to find a fair, balanced treatment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a lot of “literature” our critics produce, even from those who are otherwise well informed and scholarly in other areas. The following are among the best works, from non-LDS, introducing readers to “Mormonism,” and are works I would recommend heartily to LDS and non-LDS alike:

Stephen H. Webb, Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn from the Latter-day Saints

Douglas J. Davies, An Introduction to Mormonism

Paul C. Gutjahr, The Book of Mormon: A Biography

Serge Van Neck, Commonalities: A Positive Look at Latter-day Saints from a Baha'i Perspective

Herman Hendrickx on "Righteousness" in Matthew 5:20

Commenting on Matt 5:20 and the meaning of "righteousness" in that passage, Herman Hendrickx wrote the following which shows that the "righteousness" is not a forensic, imputed righteousness, but righteousness flowing from good works empowered by God's grace (and not one from a strict legalism--his comments show the importance of a balance approach to "righteousness" and human and divine activities):

In Matthew, 'righteousness' may have either of the two Old Testament meanings of the term: the saving will and activity of God, or the moral activity of men who do the will of God. In Mt 5:20 we find the second meaning . . .The exceeding righteousness consists in a radical and total obedience to God in complete self-giving to one's fellow-man, which carries the ethical intent of the Law to its God-willed conclusion, even when this means in some instances abrogating the letter of the Law. All this is possible because of the eschatological character of Jesus' presence; in other words, what is new about Christian righteousness is Christ himself and his radical demand, 'Follow me' (Mt 19:21). That this righteousness is not simply a matter of human achievement is suggested by the petition of Mt 6:10, 'your will be done' . . . What is meant by the 'righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees' may receive further specification in Mk 7, where Jesus said to them, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.' And he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!' (Mk 7:6-9). Jesus then used the example of how they misused the corban (Temple offering) to violate God's concern about sharing resources with the needy, in this case one's parents. The scribes and Pharisees had created a religion based on the practice of their own norms (who would venture to say that today's 'religion' is free from similar distortions?). As a result of what Jesus refers to as their transgressions of God's basic commandments, injustice was sanctioned as a religious act. Referring to such perversion of justice--all in the name of a 'religion' defined by its institutional leaders--Jesus is clearly calling for a conversion to greater justice not merely of individual persons, but of the system with all its underpinnings and supports. (Herman Hendrickx, The Sermon on the Mount: Studies in the Synoptic Gospels [London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1979], 55, 57)

David Ostler on the Importance of Studying Church History

Commenting on the importance of being informed about Latter-day Saint history and other related topics, David Ostler wrote:

Study Church History

Ministering to those with questions and doubts requires that we understand the issues that are challenging to them. In recent years, the Church has made great efforts to provide better information on its history through sources such as the Gospel Topics Essays, the Joseph Smith Papers, and its recently published history, Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days.


The Gospel Topics Essays were commissioned by Church leaders to address subjects relating to our history that could be difficult for some members--especially when first encountering them from sources antagonistic to the Church. According to President M. Russell Ballard, they "provide balance and reliable interpretations of the facts for controversial and unfamiliar Church-related subjects," including polygamy, the translation of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, race and the priesthood, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and more. Getting to know these topics is crucial for understanding our brothers and sisters who faith might be challenged by those complexities . . . We don't need to get PhDs or become experts on Church history. We can read at our own pace and decide what level of detail we need to know to be effective parents, leaders, and ministers. But one way or another, we must better understand our history and where we as Latter-day Saints come from. As members and local leaders, we need to take the initiative to learn about our complex history and be willing to discuss it in those places where we have responsibility--in our families and in our wards . . . Unfortunately, I have heard Church members and even some leaders discourage others from reading the essays, fearing that they might unnecessarily have their faith challenged by them. Shielding people from this information, however, is not a sustainable solution. As Elder Steven R. Snow, emeritus Church Historian and Recorder, has said, "My view is that being open about our history solves a whole lot more problems than it creates. We might not have all the answers, but if we are open (and we now have pretty remarkable transparency), then I think in the long run that will serve us well" . . . It's our responsibility to develop and mature our testimonies and faith. At times, the work is hard, but in the process, we will learn and develop empathy and compassion. I used to think faith was supposed to be easy--I was wrong. Faith is a lifelong pursuit and involves incorporating new life experiences into our belief without being sheltered from the complexities of history, culture, humanness, uncertainty, and all that life brings us. I have found the journey challenging but rich, and I don't wish to go back to those days when it all seemed simple. (David B. Ostler, Bridges: Ministering to Those Who Question [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2019], 47-50)

No, I will *Not* "high-five the Pope"

Before I begin, let me say that I really like a lot of the videos produced by Saints Unscripted (PKA “3 Mormons”). However, a recent video they produced is representative of the problem of theological ecumenism that is becoming more common in LDS circles, an attitude of “well, it does not really matter what you believe as long as you live a good life” mentality. This, of course, is simply false. Don’t take my word for it—read what Jesus Himself said to Joseph Smith in the First Vision and how offended Christ was at the false teachings of the churches of the day or Paul condemning the Judaizers in Galatians.

We Didn't Start the Fire - History of Christianity Remix

The first half was okay, but the second half was, frankly, abysmal. Let me focus on one thing: the positive view of the Rome ("high five the pope" being a line in the song). I will challenge those who produced the video if they can, in good conscience, (1) defend the propriety of the following Catholic prayers to/through Mary and (2) ask them to say one of these prayers next time they are asked to say an opening or closing prayer in a church setting:

Morning Offering

Father, Son and Holy Spirit, through the hands of
Mary Immaculate Queen
bless me and give me the grace to spend this day in a
manner pleasing to You.
Close to You, Mary Immaculate Queen, I want to live. With You
I desire to offer myself to Jesus. Through You I wish to receive
His blessing in order that my whole day,
from morning to night, may be occupied solely in the carrying
out of His Most Holy Will.
Mary Immaculate Queen, take my hand in Yours
so that I may keep in step with You
as we walk along the pathway of the Will of God. Amen.

Morning Offering

O, Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary I offer Thee my prayers, works, joys, and sufferings of this day in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass throughout the world. I offer them for all the intentions of thy Sacred Heart, the salvation of souls, reparation for sin, the reunion of all Christians.

Indulgence Prayers

Our Lady of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Pray for us.

O Virgin Mary, Our Lady of the Most Blessed Sacrament who art the glory of Christians, the joy of the Universal Church and the hope of the world, pray for us. Stir up in all the Faithful, devotion to the Most Holy Eucharist, that they may render themselves worthy to communicate every day.

Let us with Mary Immaculate adore, thank, beg and console the Most Sacred and Beloved Eucharistic Heart of Jesus.

Prayer to Our Lady of Guadalupe

O Virgin of Guadalupe You appeared long ago in the Americas to show Your love and compassion. Your help and protection. You directed the Indian Juan Diego to gather flowers where they never grew—from stony ground, a place of cactus, thorn and thistle. He took them in his mantle to the Bishop who beheld Your image upon the cloth.
O Mary, My mother incline Your ear to what I ask. See the grace from Your Son to touch the hearts of those who seek abortion and bring forth from this stony ground a love and respect for all the innocent children; little roses full of the fragrance of Heaven bearing in their souls the very image of God. To obtain this I offer You my prayers and my sacrifices. Gather them in Your mantle and present them to Your Son from whom all life comes. Please protect Ireland from the scourge of abortion. Amen.
Virgin of Guadalupe, Patroness of the unborn, pray for us.
Our Lady Queen of Ireland, pray for us.

St. Joseph protector of the infant Jesus from murder at the hands of Herod, pray for us.

The following prayers, examples of which could be multiplied, are taken from the book by Pray Pray Pray compiled by Catholic priest Dr. Gerard McGinnity (2d ed.; Achill, Ireland: Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer, 2000).

Of course, I know that those at Saints Unscripted would never pray such prayers: the Mariology and other theologies informing these prayers (e.g., Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and Transubstantiation) are, in LDS theology, false, which really puts the lie to their video: being a nice person is not all there is—one must possess, and hold firmly onto, doctrinal truth, not (often, blasphemous) errors.

On the topic of Mary, see my book on the topic, Behold, the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology (2017).

Gustavo Gutierrez on the Eucharist and Human Brotherhood

The first take of the Church is to celebrate with joy the gift of the salvific action of God in humanity, accomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ. This is the Eucharist: a memorial and a thanksgiving. It is a memorial of Christ which presupposes an ever-renewed acceptance of the meaning of his life—a total giving to others. It is a thanksgiving for the love of God which is revealed in these events. The Eucharist is a feast, a celebration of the joy that the Church desires and seeks to share. The Eucharist is done within the Church, and simultaneously the Church is built up by the Eucharist. In the Church “we celebrate,” writes Schillebeeckx, “that which is achieved outside the Church edifice, in human history.” This work, which creates a profound human brotherhood, gives the Church its reason for being.

In the Eucharist we celebrate the cross and the resurrection of Christ, his Passover from death to life, and our passing from sin to grace. In the Gospel the Last Supper is presented against the background of the Jewish Passover, which celebrated the liberation from Egypt and the Sinai Covenant. The Christian Passover takes on and reveals the full meaning of the Jewish Passover. Liberation from sin is at the very root of political liberation. The former reveals what is really involved in the latter. But on the other hand, communion with God and others presupposes the abolition of all injustice and exploitation. This is expressed by the very fact that the Eucharist was instituted during a meal. For the Jews a meal in common was a sign of brotherhood. It united the dinners in a kind of sacred pact. Moreover, the bread and the wine are signs of brotherhood which at the same time suggest the gift of creation. The objects used in the Eucharist themselves recall that brotherhood is rooted in God’s will to give the goods of this earth to all people so that they might build a more human world. The Gospel of John, which does not contain the story of the Eucharistic institution, reinforces this idea, for it substitutes the episode of the washing of the feet—a gesture of service, love, and brotherhood. This substitution is significant: John seems to see in this episode the profound meaning of the Eucharistic celebration, the institution of which he does not relate. Thus the Eucharist appears inseparably united to creation and to the building up of a real human brotherhood. “The reference to community,” writes Tillard, “does not therefore represent a simple consequence, an accidental dimension, a second level of a rite that is in the first place and above all individual—as the simple act of eating is. From the beginning it is seen in the human context of the meal as it was conceived in Israel. The Eucharistic rite in its essential elements is communitarian and orientated toward the constitution of human brotherhood.” (Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation [trans. Caridad Inda and John Eagleson; Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1985], 262-63)

Michael Ovey Blatantly Ignoring King David as an Example of a Justified Person in Romans 4

In a recent volume on Luke-Acts, one Reformed author wrote:

First, Romans 4:1-3 discusses how Abraham was justified and uses the ‘reckoning righteousness’ language of Genesis 15:6 to explain how he was justified. Reckoning righteousness and justifying are thus tied together. Second, Romans 4:6-8 describes the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness. The blessedness in question, for those reckoned righteous, is the forgiveness and covering of sins. This links justification with the forgiveness of sins. This does not mean that justification is exhausted by the forgiveness of sins. (Michael J. Ovey, The Feasts of Repentance: From Luke-Acts to Systematic and Pastoral Theology [New Studies in Biblical Theology 49; London: Apollos, 2019], 111)

Those familiar with Rom 4, one will note one glaring omission: the example of David and how he, not just Abraham, is a prototype of a justified person, notwithstanding the reference to Rom 4:6-8(!):

Just as David (καθάπερ καὶ Δαυὶδ) also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account." (Rom 4:6-8 NASB)

Paul uses the example of King David from Psa 32, alongside Abraham in Gen 15:6, as an example of a justified individual. The problem is that the example of David refutes Reformed theology as it shows David was justified on more than one occasion! See:

King David Refutes Reformed Soteriology

As for Gen 15:6 and the “reckoning” (חשׁב; λογιζομαι) of righteousness, as well as other issues relating to the nature of justification, see, for e.g.:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

This is just another example of Reformed Protestants, notwithstanding their repeated claims to believe in “biblical Christianity” explicitly ignoring key passages of holy writ that refutes their man-made theology.

Michael Ovey on The Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15

The parable of the lost son at first glance appears slightly different [to other parables of Jesus]. It is longer and more complex, having three central characters rather than simply one or two. It is also clearly very closely tied with the setting described in 15:2, where there is murmuring against Jesus on two counts: that he receives sinners and that he eats with them. Terminologically, one might add, diegongyzon in 15:2 recalls the ‘murmurs’ in the wilderness.

Both these elements of criticism, receiving and eating, are picked up in the parable. Thus the father does indeed receive his son, with both compassion (esplanchnisthē; 15:20) and joy. Joy is exhorted in 15:23 (euphranthōmen) and a necessity in 15:32 (euphranthēnai de kai charēnai edei). This emphasis on joy links this parable with the two preceding it, and the repeated exhortation and note of obligation intensifies the challenge to the Pharisees and scribes to join in rejoicing over the repentant. As for eating, the father also sets a feast for his lost son, which the elder son refuses to join. The feast itself features the fatted calf, implying ‘a meal of sumptuous and abundant nourishment’, thereby emphasizing both the satisfaction of the younger son’s craving but also the intensity of the father’s joy at his son’s restoration.

Relationally this creates a triangle of roles like this:

                                             Father = host and (implied) Jesus

 

younger son =                                                                           elder son =
guest + other                                                                             third party and critic

The father seems identified with Jesus since the issue of 15:2 is Jesus’ reception of and eating with sinners, which is the elder son’s objection to the father. (Michael J. Ovey, The Feasts of Repentance: From Luke-Acts to Systematic and Pastoral Theology [New Studies in Biblical Theology 49; London: Apollos, 2019], 26-27; comment in square brackets added for clarification)

Lyle O. Wright on D&C 85:7

And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God; (D&C 85:7)

In a MA thesis on the origins of the Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times, Lyle O. Wright wrote the following about D&C 85:7, a passage that has been abused by countless fundamentalist groups and false prophets thereof:

The Revocation of the Prophecy

The revelation contained in Section 85 was originally part of a letter written to W.W. Phelps (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, I, 227-229). The subject of the letter was the settling of Zion, in Missouri, and problems relative to that settlement. Edward Partridge was the man called by revelation to stand as bishop in the land of Zion, and the revelations calling him to that position had clearly stipulated that a major responsibility was for him to divine "the lands of the heritage of God unto his children." (Doctrine and Covenants 58:14, 17; also 57:7, 15). Note that this is to be also a primary mission of the One Mighty and Strong as specified in Doctrine and Covenants 85:7.

But Bishop Partridge had not been consistently faithful in his relationship to the church and to the Prophet. When the Prophet first visited in Missouri, "Bishop Partridge several times strenuously opposed the measures of the Prophet, and was sharply rebuked by the latter for his unbelief and hardness of heart." In August 1831, he was rebuked again, this time by the Lord in the revelation contained in Doctrine and Covenants 58:14-16.

There was an apparent adjustment of differences on the Prophet's next visit in April, 1832. However, the Bishop was soon again embroiled in "conditions of rebellion, jealousy, pride, unbelief, and hardness of heart" for which all the Saints in Zion were reprimanded by the Lord (Doctrine and Covenants 84:54, 58-76). It was when these conditions prevailed that the letter which included the revelation of Section 85 was written.

The "man who was called and appointed of God" to "divide unto the Saints their inheritance"--Edward Pat ridge--was at that time out of order, neglecting his own duty and putting "forth his hand to steady the ark"; hence he was warned of the judgment of God impending and the prediction was made that another "one mighty and strong," would be sent of God to take his place to have his bishopric--one having the spirit and power of that high office resting upon him, by which he would have power to "set in order the house of God and arrange by lot the inheritance of the Saints"; in other words, one who would do the work that Bishop Edward Partridge had been appointed to do but had failed to accomplish.

Bishop Partridge partially repented after the admonition and reproof in Doctrine and Covenants 85, and his repentance seems to have been thorough and final after the chastening by their enemies in 1833 and the Lord's explanation for that, in Doctrine and Covenants 101:1-9. From then on, "in the midst of troublous times in Missouri, Edward Partridge acted a most noble and self-sacrificing part, and bore many indignities with the greatest patience." By 1835, the Lord was able to say, in a revelation to Joseph Smith, that he was well pleased with Edward Partridge (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, I, 302-303).

Certainly in the face of this plain statement of the Lord that the sins of Edward Partridge were forgiven him, we do not feel that this sad and early death was the fulfillment of the threatened judgment of the revelation, but that he was the man so threatened in that revelation there can be no question; not only on account of what is here set forth, but also because Orson Pratt, one familiar with Edward Partridge, and an active participant in all these historical matters, publically declared from the pulpit in Salt Lake City, about the time of the death of President Young, that the man referred to in the passage of the revelation in question, was Bishop Edward Partridge. Of the facts of his statement there can be no doubt; at the time he was the historian of the Church as well as a member of quorum of the apostles.

Thus, it is established that the thread in Doctrine and Covenants 85:8 was directed at Edward Partridge. Since the entire letter was concerned with the affairs of Zion in Missouri, it seems that the person promised in Doctrine and Covenants 85:7 was to be someone selected to take Bishop Partridge's place, if he continued in his rebellious attitude and failed to set the house of God in order through proper handling of the division of inheritances and other necessary business. But, since the Bishop did change, "who shall say that his repentance, his sacrifices, his sufferings and faithfulness, did not procure for him a mitigation of the severe judgment decreed against him in the revelation contained in the eighty-fifth section of the Doctrine and Covenants"?

An example of such a revocation of the decree of God is given in the instance of Hezekiah, King of Israel, who, when appointed by the Lord to die, prayed to God and was granted an additional fifteen years of life (2 Kings 20:1-6).

It could be added that allowance was made for such possibilities in the revelations to Joseph Smith:

Wherefore, I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the hands of the rebellious, saith the Lord. (Doctrine and Covenants, 56:4)

I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing. (Doctrine and Covenants 58:32) (Lyle O. Wright, Origins and Development of the Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times [MA Thesis; Brigham Young University, 1963], 46-48; cf. pp. 27-50 for a discussion of the many claimants to being the “one mighty and strong”)

Menachem Kellner on Judaism and the "Imitatio Dei"

Commenting on the imitatio Dei in Judaism, Menachem Kellner (at the time of writing, a lecturer in the Department of Jewish History and Thought in the University of Haifa) wrote:

Since human beings are created in the image of God, it is obvious that one achieve the highest possible level of perfection or self-realization by becoming as similar to God as humanly possible. This is the basis for what may be the single most important ethical doctrine of the Hebrew Bible, that of imitatio Dei, the imitation of God . . . the biblical doctrine of imitatio Dei finds expression in verses such as the following: ‘Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy’ (Lev. 19:2); ‘And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord the God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul’ (Deut. 10:12); and ‘The Lord will establish thee for a holy people unto Himself, as He hath sworn unto thee; if thou shalt keep the commandments of the Lord thy God, and walk in His ways’ (Deut. 28:9). For our purposes here, these verses involve two explicit commandments to be holy, because God is holy, and to walk in the ways of God. How does one make oneself holy and thus God-like? The Bible couldn’t be clearer. Leviticus 19:2 is parents, charity, justice, honesty, kindness to the disadvantaged, etc.), ritual (Sabbath observance, sacrifices, etc.), and theological (not taking the name of the Lord in vain). One achieves holiness, that is, by obeying God’s commandments, or, in the words quoted above from Deuteronomy, by walking in his ways.

It should come as no surprise that when Judaism, which so clearly emphasizes the practical over the metaphysical, introduces a doctrine which seems so clearly to beg for a metaphysical interpretation, it immediately insists on interpreting it in practical terms. The imitation of God, that is, is not a metaphysical issue in Judaism but a practical, moral one. Jews are not commanded (and it must not be forgotten that the imitation of God, as the verses adduced above clearly show, is a commandment of the Torah and was no construed by most later authorities) literally and actually to transcend their normal selves and become in some sense like God: rather, they are commanded to act in certain ways. It is through the achievement of practical, moral perfection, that Jews imitate God and thus fulfil their destiny as individuals created in the image of God. (Menachem Kellner, "Jewish Ethics" in Peter Singer, ed. A Companion to Ethics [Blackwell Companions to Philosophy; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 1991, 1993], 82-90, here, pp. 84-85, italics in original)

Taizé Community on John 4:24

In a book produced by the Taizé community (a community of religious brother from Catholic and Protestant backgrounds), we find the following discussion of John 4:24:

What does it mean to say ‘God is spirit’?

These somewhat enigmatic words of Jesus are found in St John’s Gospel, in the story of the Samarian woman. She asks Jesus where one should worship God. He replies that encountering God is not linked to a geographical place, and adds, ‘God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth’ (Jn 4.24). By affirming that it is possible to enter into a relationship with God everywhere, Jesus is faithful to the tradition of his people Israel. An age-old prayer says to God, ‘Where could I go to escape your spirit; where could I flee from your face? If I go up to heaven, you are present; if I lie down in the nether world, there you are’ (Ps. 1397-8). God can come to anyone, wherever they are.

But Jesus also confirms the religious feeling that God cannot be worshipped just anywhere. We must worship ‘in spirit and in truth’. This does not mean just ‘spiritually and truly’ but rather designates a place for worship. This place called ‘spirit and truth’ is communion in God, a temple ‘not made by human hands’ that Christ built by his resurrection (Mk 14.58). God who is spirit never ceases to create his own sanctuary in people’s hearts by strengthening them in love. He turns us into ‘living stones’ who together build ‘a dwelling-place in the spirit’ (1 Pet. 2.5)

‘What is born of flesh is flesh, what is born of spirit is spirit’ (Jn 3.6). The difference is radical. God is ‘spirit’; we are ‘flesh’, in other words powerless to go beyond our limitations as created beings. When we pray, we may find ourselves in front of an impenetrable wall, or even a void. We cannot reach God by our own resources. Our entire being is ‘flesh’, even the mind with which we search for God. God is beyond what our senses can perceive and our intelligence conceive. Sometimes doubts arise, and even the meaning of the word God becomes unclear.

God is not identified with any reality of this world. It cannot be said of God ‘he is here’ or ‘he is there’ (compare Lk 17.21). His presence is as fleeting as a breath: ‘The wind blows where it will; you hear it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going’ (n 3.8).

The fact that God is spirit does not simply mean that God is totally other. In the Bible, ‘spirit’ is not a static notion, but designates something dynamic—an activity energies that transform. That God is spirit means that he is searching for us constantly. Life radiates from him and is communicated to us. God transforms us too into spirit according to the words of Christ, ‘What is born of spirit is spirit’. God is spirit; God I alive, and in him we too ‘live and move and have our being’ (Acts 17.28). (Seek and You Will Find: Questions on the Christian Faith and the Bible [London: Continuum, 2005], 8-9)

What is interesting is that the above discussion of John 4:24 understands that the text is speaking, not of the ontological make-up of God the Father (e.g., that he is only a spirit and does not have a body or some corporeal form), but instead, it is about how one can worship God in any geographical area (not only Jerusalem or Mount Gezarim).

For an exegesis of John 4:24 and other texts (e.g., Heb 1:3), see:

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment

Full Remarks of President Nelson at the NAACP's 110th Annual National Convention

The Church Newsroom Youtube page just posted the following:

Full Remarks of President Nelson at the NAACP's 110th Annual National Convention

The presentation was decent, although (1) still waiting for that ecclesiastical denouncement of the temple/priesthood ban and (2) Nelson's ever-increasing (and unhealthy) ecumenism comes out, applauding a Protestant (Calvary Chapel) minister and his (false) religious devotion.

For the best treatment of blacks and Mormonism, see:

Russell W. Stevenson, For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism, 1830-2013

Jeffrey R. Holland Using “Jehovah” as a Title

It is instructive that this long-prophesied forerunner to Jesus did not call him “Jehovah” or “Savior” or “Redeemer” or even “the Son of God”—all of which were applicable titles. (Jeffrey R. Holland, “Behold the Lamb of God,” April 2019 General Conference)

 For a useful article, see:

Keith H. Meservy, LORD = Jehovah (Ensign, June 2002)

Ireland, Ur of the Chaldeees

A friend, Jaxon Washburn, shared this with me as a joke:

Anna Wilkes, Ireland, Ur of the Chaldees (1873)

While it is utter nonsense (I mean, everyone knows Ireland is not Ur of the Chaldees--it is God's Country!), just as Lot and his daughters is a better love story than Twilight, this book is a better attempt at scriptural exegesis than anything produced by the advocates of the Heartland model of Book of Mormon geography.

Speaking of which, be sure to check out Stephen Smoot et al. and their beatdown of the Heartland model (and Stephen's excellent article on the true location of Ur of the Chaldees)

D. Charles Pyle on Egyptian Terms for "Eternity"

Commenting on passages such as Moroni 8:18 in the Book of Mormon that speak of God the Father being “unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity,” LDS apologist D. Charles Pyle wrote the following which is rather insightful:

We simply could here on this point of the Nephites thinking in terms of Hebrew meanings when composing in Egyptian words and sentences, but it also is of interest to note what ancient Egyptians would have expressed if the Nephites themselves also thought similarly to the way that the Egyptian people did while writing their own religious and other texts in Egyptian. For instance, the Egyptian  word for “eternity,” ḥḥ, was expressed both by the word as well as by the ideographic symbol of the same meaning, both of which had the same range of meaning from “a great but indefinite number” to “millions” (as in the number of years, also seen in some writings) in their religious texts. A deity named ḥḥ was in their pantheon, with the tacit understanding among the ancient Egyptians that this god thus himself also was “the god of hundreds of thousands of years.” Another way of writing the word was nḥḥ (meaning eternity). And in connection with this word’s form there also was a deity named Nḥḥ (described as “the god of eternity”).

The Egyptians, much as the Hebrews so did, sometimes also would string together word expressing long durations of time. Yet even those usages still represented long, measurable durations of time, thus demonstrating that even the Egyptians used various words (which frequently are translated as eternity, everlasting, and for ever and ever) similarly to how the Hebrews also did with respect to time. For instance, they might want to write a phrase like nḥḥ dt (or its fuller form nḥḥ ḥn^c dt) to mean something like eternity with everlastingness. Thus, Egyptian also used similar approaches to meaning in which words were attached to other words, as also seen in the use of the phrase ḥḥ nn dr, or it fuller form ḥḥnn dr^c (meaning literally millions of years without limit, or, an eternity without end). The mere existence of such constructions shows us that even Egyptian ḥḥ and nḥḥ did not mean eternity as we have tended to think of the concept. Nor did dt by itself mean everlasting as we might assume it did. Also weighty is evidence we have seen that an Egyptian word for eternity in a phrase like ḥtr šn nḥḥ (meaning a tax fixed or ever or a perpetual tax) also reveals to us that said word did not have inherent within it a meaning we might want to attach to it with our Western way of looking at philosophical constructs. (D. Charles Pyle, I Have Said Ye are Gods: Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament (Revised and Supplemented) [CreateSpace, 2018], 226-28, italics in original)

I have added the following information provided by Bro. Pyle to my essay

Moroni 8:18, Psalm 90:2, and the Latter-day Saint Understanding of Deity 

Thomas Wayment on John 10:30

I and my Father are one (ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν) (John 10:30)

Commenting on John 10:30 and its relationship to Latter-day Saint Christology, Thomas Wayment wrote:

The Greek can also be translated as I and the Father are in one. The noun one is neuter in Greek, meaning that Jesus was not declaring that they were the same person but of the same essence, purpose, and mission. Some have argued that Latter-day Saints who hold the view that Jesus and the Father are distinct beings who are united in purpose deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. Jesus, however, is clearly presenting himself as the shepherd of the Father’s floc and thus unified in the mission of the Father; he is also the divine on of God. Compare 3 Nephi 20:35. (The New Testament: A Translation for Latter-day Saints: A Study Bible [Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018], 186)

With respect to 3 Nephi 20:35, the verse reads thusly:

The Father hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of the Father; and the Father and I are one.

Susan Niditch on the Divine Council

In a very interesting book on personal religion in exilic and post-exilic texts of the Bible, Susan Niditch wrote the following about the Divine Council which will be of interest to Latter-day Saints:

One important set of biblical materials dealing with the experiential dimension [of experiencing the divine personally] describes the physical presence of a human being inside the realm of the sacred; he has somehow been transported to the divine throne room, where he observes and interacts with holy beings, including some manifestation of the deity himself. Divine-council scenes are common stock in the epic literature of the ancient Mediterranean world. In its most frequent form, the chief deity, who makes decisions regarding groups and individuals, war and peace, is surrounded by fellow celestial beings, including his advisers and sometimes his adversaries or rivals. This cross-cultural constellation of motifs, including the king-like figure, his retainers, the conversation, and actions, is specified in an Israelite prophetic medium. The seer, a human being, is transported to the heavenly realm, where he observes the scene or hears, the conversation and often participates in the action . . . The simplest (though not necessarily earliest) version is found in Exodus 24:9-11, in which Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders ascend to the divine realm after the escape from Egypt and the formative scene at Sinai. Exodus 24:9-11 alludes to a banquet, an appropriate motif to conclude the victory-enthronement patterns that characterizes the escape from Egypt, the defeat of the Egyptian enemy, and the enthronement on the mountain, “God’s sanctuary,” as described poetically in Exodus 15. This same pattern is found in ancient Near Eastern creation epics such as the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish and the Ugaritic table of Baal and Anat, in which the enemy is death or chaos and the new order is celebrated by a gathering of deities and feasting. In Exodus 24, the world of God is “above”—one ascends (24:9). The deity is visible—he has feet (24:10)—and the human guests behold him. The seeing is described in two verbs (24:10, 11), one of which, ḥzh, is related to an ancient term for “prophet,” as suggested by the biblical author at 1 Samuel 9:9. The environment appears to be tactile, though more luminously pure than anything on earth—“like the image of sapphire tile-work,” like the “very substance of heaven” (24:10). A feast is provided as the guests commune with God in an important symbolic representation of their relationship. The deity, the powerful warrior seen in the electric, volcanic presence at Sinai, where the people and even ritual pure priests are warned to keep their distance lest he lash out against them, here welcomes the feasters. The author emphasizes that God does not lay a hand upon them, although they are in his very realm. Indeed no supramundane counselors are present. Human beings play the role of those invited to dine at God’s behest, but this is no randomly selected set of people; they are leaders, people of inherited status. The image and role of the elites, Levites and elders, is thereby asserted and enhanced. (Susan Niditch, The Responsive Self: Personal Religion in Biblical Literature of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015], 110-12, comment in square bracket added for clarification)

Update//How to Support this Blog and My Writing/Research

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, I took my final exams and recently got my results--I got top mark, including 97% in Management Accounts, so thanks for the prayers/positive vibes. I am now back job hunting now (though I hope to continue, albeit, “on the side,” further studies in accountancy). So, prayers that one will find good employment will be appreciated.

I will take this time to “plug” my Pay Pal Page for those who wish to help my researching/writing/blogging. All funds received will be strictly used for my research/writing.

Daniel Frayer-Griggs on 1 Corinthians 3:15 and the σωζω + δια + genitive construction being instrumental

In my article 1 Corinthians 3:15: A very un-Protestant Biblical Verse, I discuss the problem this text poses to most Protestant theologies. I have added the following taken from a very interesting work on the imagery of "fire" in eschatological texts in the New Testament:

Commenting on the sense of σωζω + δια + genitive, Daniel Frayer-Griggs (who himself is a Protestant) wrote:

The construction occurs twice in the Septuagint, in eight other instances in the Greek New Testament (not counting 1 Cor 3:15), frequently in the Apostolic Fathers, and sparingly in Philo and Josephus. In the vast majority of these cases, the preposition takes the instrumental sense.

The sense of eight of the ten additional biblical occurrences of the phrase σωζω + δια + genitive is uncontroversial:

1. “ . . . so he [the LORD] saved them [Israel] by the hand [εσωσεν . . . δια χειρος] of Jeroboam son of Joash” (LXX 2 Kgs 14:27)

2. “The Lord has founded Zion, and the humble among the people will be saved through him” (δι’ αυτου σωθησονται) (LXX Isa 14:32b).

3. “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (σωθη . . . δι’ αυτου) (John 3:17).

4. “But we believe that we are saved through grace” [δια της χαριτος . . . σωθηναι] of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11).

5. “Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him [σωθησομεθα δι’ αυτου] from the wrath of God” (Rom 5:9).

6. “Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you . . . through which also you are being saved” (δι’ ου . . .σωζεσθε) (1 Cor 15:1-2).

7. “For by grace you have been saved through faith” (σωσωσμενοι δια πιστεως) (Eph 2:8).

8. “He saved us through the water [εσωσεν . . . δια λουτρου] of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).

In each of the above passages—two of which are from undisputed Pauline epistles, and two of which are from Deutero-Pauline epistles—the phrase σωζω + δια + genitive unambiguously takes the instrumental sense . . . in each case the object of the preposition belongs to a cluster of theological themes related to the gospel: faith, grace, Jesus, the good news, or the waters of rebirth and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, one gathers the impression that resistance to the instrumental sense of “saved through fire” in 1 Cor 3:15 stems from the apparent inconsistency between being saved by means of fire, on the one hand, and being saved by grace, the gospel of Jesus, or faith in Christ, on the other hand. For this reason, the remaining two biblical occurrences of the phrase σωζω + δια + genitive are of particular significance, despite the difficulties implicit in their own meanings.

According to the Deutero-Pauline 1 Tim 2:15, “she [woman] will be saved through childbearing” (σωθησεται . . . δια της τεκνογονιας). The instrumental sense of this phrase I frequently contested, presumably due to the tension that it creates with the conviction that one is justified by faith, nor works. The local reading of the verse would suggest that the woman’s life will be preserved through the dangerous process of giving birth. Attractive as this reading may be to modern exegetes who find this verse overtly patriarchal, it does not adequately fi the context of 1 Tim 2:15, for in the Pastoral Epistles σωζω is always used soteriologically, and given this context the instrumental sense of the preposition δια is most plausible. The instrumental reading, moreover, coheres with the Jewish view that the travails of childbirth in some way overcome the curse of Eve (see Gen 3:16) and that women attain merit by fulfilling their duties as wives and mothers.

We also have a rough parallel to this construction in 1 Pet 3:20, where we read that in the days of Noah, “eight persons were saved through water” (διεσωθησαν δι’ υδατος). At first glance, this verse appears to support the local reading, and some have taken it in this sense, for Noah and his family were preserved as they physically passed through the waters of the flood. However, as v. 21 explains, “baptism, which this [the flood] prefigured, now saves [σωζει] you.” According to the allegorical logic of these verses, the water of the deluge typologically signifies the water of baptism and the verb διεσωθησαν stands parallel to σωζει. Admittedly, reading the destructive waters of the flood as a type signifying the saving waters of baptism is, as R.T. France puts it, “a little whimsical.” However, as France goes on to observe, it is “certainly to belong the imagination of a keen typologist.” Indeed, if we follow the logic of 1 Peter 3 itself, the sense of the verse seems to be that the flood waters were instrumental in the salvation and cleansing of the believer. Thus, in our consideration of the construction σωζω + δια + genitive in 1 Cor 3:15, it is significant that in every other biblical instance it is used in the instrumental sense. (Daniel Frayer-Griggs, Saved Through Fire: The Fiery Ordeal in New Testament Eschatology [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2016], 211-13)

This meaning is also borne out in Greek texts contemporary with First Corinthians (e.g., texts dating to the Apostolic Fathers, such as 1 Clem. 9:4; 12:1; 58:2; 2 Clem. 3:3; Pol. Phil. 1:3; Herm. Vis. 3.3.5; 3.8.3; 4.2.4; Sim. 9.12.3). Such is also buttressed by Philo,

. . . for he too uses the construction σωζω + δια + genitive exclusively in the instrumental sense (Leg. 3.189; Cherub. 130; Agr. 1.13; Abr. 145). The most significant of these is in his discussion of the judgment of Sodom:

Because of the five finest cities in it were about to be destroyed by fire, and one was destined to be left unhurt and save from every evil. For it was necessary that the calamities should be inflicted by the chastising power, and that the one which was to be saved should be saved by the beneficent power” (σωζεσθαι δε δια της ευεργετιδος). (Abr. 145) (Ibid., 214)

In light of the overwhelming evidence that the believer will be purified through the instrumentality of the fire in a posthumous state, Frayer-Griggs writes:

This is not to question Paul’s insistence that believers are justified by faith (see Galatians 2-3 and Romans 3-4) are ultimately saved through Christ (see 1 Cor 15:1-2; Rom 5:9). Indeed, in his building metaphor Paul assumes that the foundation is Christ (v. 12). Yet in Paul’s soteriology, the believer’s justification and future salvation do not preclude the possibility of punishment for sins either in this life or at the last judgment (see Rom 14:10; 1 Cor 4:4-5; 5:5; 11:29-32; 2 Cor 5:10). The verb ζημιωθήσεται in v. 15a may suggest that some of the saved will be “lightly punished at the judgment, depending on their deeds,” and in this instance the builder’s punishment may be the painful purification process of being saved δια πυρος. Perhaps the most relevant Pauline parallel is 1 Cor 5:5: “hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh [εις ολεθρον της σαρχος], so that [ινα] his spirit may be saved [σωθη] in the day [εν τη ημερα] of the Lord.” here the circumstances of exclusion, suffering, and possible death contribute (ινα) to the individual’s salvation on “the day.” Similarly, in 1 Cor 3:15, the ire of divine judgment on “the day” appears to be the circumstance through which the builder is purified of his sins and through which Christ saves.  (Ibid., 216, emphasis added)